Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I would like patent trolls if they did something positive for our culture. Patenting emoticons is a good start, but maybe they could have a paypal donation button or kickstarter goal to patent a button for "begs the question" and "couldn't care less" and "irregardless" and um, like, um, like using the like word like every like three seconds. I'd throw some bucks into a kickstarter for that.

The GGP was referring to various illiteracies and illogicals one hears and even reads daily like "should of". In that respect the poster you responded to was correct. When you say "I could care less" you are saying that you care at least a little bit, but if you couldn't care less you don't care at all.

Those things actually amuse me. What annoys me is when an illiteracy (or perhaps aliteracy) changes the meaning of a sentence, like saying "loose their cash" when "lose" is meant.

First to patent, it is becoming blatantly obvious that a performance based for profit USPTO, does not give a crap. Their only check now, is it patented, no, approve the patent. Straight up coprruption of the patent system by the US government, establishing a system where the US profits by the most indefensible patents.

First patent fee, then based up approval of bogus patent, guaranteed legal challenges. All those legal attacks and defences to be fought at in US courts, by US lawyers, bleeding foreign corporations dry spending hundreds of millions of dollars upon blatant in your face corporate driven corruption of US government agencies.

It is obvious that US patent lawyers have got deeply involved in how the USPTO, managed and run, in how patents are approved and basically guaranteed a muli-million dollar patent litigation industry.

It is pretty obvious that the US administration is the one that needs to be hauled into court and held financially accountable, penalties and damages, resulting from bad patent approvals.

We all know children love emoticons, if this patent stands than children might not be able to use 1 click emoticons anymore.
Please think of the children and revoke this patent. (how come the 'think of the children' argument never uses it's powers for good?)

But as for hating patent trolIs, are there many people who actually like them? Obviously some lawyers because it keeps them employed, but other than that? And is there anyone who tries to make a case that they are somehow beneficial to society? (serious questions BTW. I've never heard any argument in support of this practice)

But as for hating patent trolIs, are there many people who actually like them? Obviously some lawyers because it keeps them employed, but other than that?

Well, that's a tough question. I would imagine that they like themselves but not other patent trolls but I can't be sure if they hate themselves. Perhaps we should investigate if the rate of suicide is higher in patent trolls? On a more serious note, there is one odd person that likes patents: nationalists. Whether you be a member of the US government or just a good ole fashion rah rah USA nutjob, there is a growing intellectual war between the United States and China. Sure, other countries like Japan get a lot of patents but patent trolls translate to "innovation" when it comes to number of patents and, let's face it, it's patent trolls that file for the most patents without actually building anything or licensing anything. I guess you could argue that they hurt the economy when small businesses get blindsided by these lawsuits but they always target the deepest coffers which usually seem to be happy to cough up and settle out of court. I can't think of anyone else really that benefits from this -- even the courtrooms in East Texas are clogged with shitty patent cases while trying to take care of real problems among the local people.

And is there anyone who tries to make a case that they are somehow beneficial to society? (serious questions BTW. I've never heard any argument in support of this practice)

Well, your question could be answered by This American Life's Episode 441 [thisamericanlife.org] but there's a key problem. First, in that podcast, Intellectual Ventures argues that they help inventors protect their IP by suing the shit out of everyone that tries to implement anything remotely like the patents in question. And they also claim that they constantly license patents to people without involving a painful legal battle. However, as the TAL team asks for a happy license customer, IV can only give them one name of someone whose patent they license. And, gosh darn it, wouldn't you know it, as they tried to contact this individual it turned out that Intellectual Ventures was going around suing people and gathering out of court settlements in the name of that patent without the right to. And IV's response to this? Us normal people don't know what the hell we're talking about [techdirt.com].

So there you go, sorry for the bias in my submission and this post but, well, when it warrants it I'm not afraid to call horseshit horseshit.

The inventor may only screw around the rest of the industry and stifle innovation within the breadth of the patent's claims (as read within the context of the description).

Hence, an arguably trivial patent which is very narrow in scope is pretty much only damaging to the reputation of the patent system which granted it, because the protection conferred isn't anywhere near broad enough to cause a genuine nuisance to anyone.

I worked with Wildseed - they were a good bunch of folks with a decent idea - a phone targeted at kids that you could swap the outside and it'd change the UI. They planned to sell different branded shells for pop groups, etc. that would effectively re-theme the phone you had completely. The phone itself was really funky, with a slight boomerang shape, and the keyboard was at the top with the screen below. (You can see a diagram here http://www.freepatentsonline.com/D0470135-0-large.jpg). The phone also had an LED strip on the top of the phone that enabled you to sky-write messages to others by waving the phone. I also remember they had a cool FM radio channel sharing feature, where you could quickly tell your mates to check out a station. All in all, they had a tonne of ideas and they did in fact manage to sell a few phones, but ultimately, it died and AOL bought them.The patent looks good to me. Very solid, and narrow. It's for a hardware button on the phone that enables you to quickly enter emoticons. Unless someone can point to a phone that did that before, then I don't see any prior art. As for obviousness, that's a very low bar. If no one had done it before (for emoticons) then why would it be obvious?The problem I see here is that the good intended patent, to protect a start-up's business ended up in a troll haus.

If no one had done it before (for emoticons) then why would it be obvious?

Because noone cared for the extra key before? If someone asks me "how can I design something, say, an input function, on the phone that will quickly write an emoticon in the message they're typing" then an extra key would be *pretty* obvious. Hence, it fails the "obvious" test.

This whole patent was stupid to start with, and now it's been weaponized. Great going.

If it's only for a hardware button then which BlackBerry do they claim infringes? BBM has a emoticon button, but it's software. Software emoticon buttons have been around for nearly as long as emoticons. Adding 'on a cell phone' does not make it novel.

If no one had done it before (for emoticons) then why would it be obvious?

Perhaps obviousness should be scrapped for a better condition like "obvious once you've stated the problem you're solving" or something that rules out patents that are simple enough that their title is the answer (e.g. "one-click").

Samsung "gets a free pass" because they used their patents the "right" way and used it as a defensive deterrent against other lawsuits. When Apple sued them, they sued back as a means of increasing their leverage in a legal battle. Samsung wasn't out simply trolling with the patent, as this company seems to be.

My old Samsung feature phone did *exactly* what is claimed in this patent. Including details like selecting the emoticon using the 3x4 button grid on the phone. It came out around 2005 when this patent was filed. I'm sure it wasn't Samsungs first phone to have that feature either.